Israel could face Palestinian war crimes charges

[eots]

what "all started' ima? the ass you licked----SADAAM' HUSSEIN's-----killed hundreds of thousands of shiites and kurds and----also Iranians -----long before we got there -------

a long time before we got there with approval and weapons supplied by the
U.S

For those who do not know----Sadaam
was of the same "political" pursuasion as another of Imas objects of love---to wit-----BASHIR ASSAD-----and even more brutal and imperialistic ----but why bother about little details like support of INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
and ARABIST IMPERIALISM Interestlingly enough----in the SUNNI WORLD----SADDAM was just as popular as your other hero OSAMA ---dancing on the dead bodies or kurdish infants ---so much fun

I worked with lots of sunni muslims-----long hours-----people talk

anyone interested in the SUNNI TAKE on the invasion of kuwait? ---here it is "GOOD IDEA---THE KUWAITIS DO NOT SUPPORT ISLAMIC 'causes' " read that ---kuwait was not buying the bombs to tie to jihadist slut asses

Kuwait was slant drilling Iraqis oil feilds

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ignoring the International Court of Justice
Why Israeli Settlements Are The Real Threat to Peace

The announcement that Israel will construct 3,000 new homes in settlements in Jerusalem and in the West Bank has been followed by the usual international outcry against it. Despite protests by leading industrialized nations Israel will probably build them as planned. Those that claim that Palestine recognition at the United Nations is a threat to peace will, again, miss the obvious point. The real threat to peace is the construction of illegal settlements in Palestinian land.

Settlement construction is controversial issue on which most nations, except Israel, agree: they are illegal under international law. On May 14, European Foreign Affairs Ministers stated, “The European Union expresses deep concern about the marked acceleration of settlement construction following the end of the 2012 moratorium, the recent decision of the government of Israel regarding the status of some settlement outposts as well as the proposal to relocate settlers from Migron within the occupied Palestinian territory…”

Several United Nations resolutions have stated that both the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, particularly UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the appropriate legal instrument. It calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup.

In 2004, an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice determined that Israel had breached its obligations under international law by establishing settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It also concluded that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of imposing a régime which is contrary to international law. The Court also determined that the Israeli régime violates the basic human rights of Palestinians by impeding the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception of Israeli citizens) and their exercise of their right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living.

Furthermore, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute defines “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a war crime. Although Israel initially signed the statute, it later declared its intention not to ratify it.

Why Israeli Settlements Are The Real Threat to Peace » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

If the international community had any real interest in peace or justice in this region, it would tell Abbas that if he wants their support he must get his ass back to the negotiating table and present some realistic proposals for a final settlement agreement or they will freeze his foreign bank accounts.

 

[Jos]

If the international community had any real interest in peace or justice in this region, it would tell Abbas that if he wants their support he must get his ass back to the negotiating table and present some realistic proposals for a final settlement agreement or they will freeze his foreign bank accounts.

do you bring any proof of " his foreign bank accounts"?

 

[toomuchtime_]

If the international community had any real interest in peace or justice in this region, it would tell Abbas that if he wants their support he must get his ass back to the negotiating table and present some realistic proposals for a final settlement agreement or they will freeze his foreign bank accounts.

do you bring any proof of " his foreign bank accounts"?

The Palestinian president is also worried about the exposure of more corruption allegations against him. Since he became PA chairman, details about Abbas' income and assets have been disclosed by opposition elements within Fatah.

According to the paper, Abbas earns $1 million a month. US President Barack Obama's annual salary, in comparison, stands at $400,000. The paper also quoted data published by the Inlight Press website according to which Abbas holds several Jordanian accounts of more than $500 million, mostly Palestinian tax payer money.

PA bid: Israel threatens to topple Abbas - Israel News, Ynetnews

 

[RoccoR]

toomuchtime_, et al,

Yes, it will be interesting to see if the ICC takes the Jurisdiction. You know the Post-WWII Nuremberg trials did not have an ICC or a set of Statues.

As I mentioned before, the Palestinians may have a legitimate cause of action. And this is one that I have mention "specifically" before on one of these threads.

(COMMENT)

This particular cause of action is under the Rome Statues. It has to do with the Administration and Protection of the "Occupied Territories."

... ... ...

Now it becomes a legal question because Israel is not a signatory to the ICC Statues and the US has "stated its intention NOT to ratify" (or essentially unsigned) the ICC statues.

First, building houses in the West Bank or Jerusalem is in no sense a war crime. Second, while the PA may - but may not - now have the status to file charges, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this issue under the Rome Statute. Third, since the ICC is not at all insulated from political forces and its judges are not vetted for political bias, it is as likely to issue judgments based on political interests as it is to consider legal issues, but regardless of what it rules, since Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the worst that can happen is that travel by some Israeli leaders to some of the states that did sign the Statute would be problematical.

(COMMENT)

Building in the "Occupied Territories" is not a War Crime. Transferring populations is. If the Israelis are so sure that they are not in RS-2b(viii), they should file a brief to the ICC asking for a fair hearing. (I don't think they are so sure that they want to do that.)

Jurisdiction! Yes several possible outcomes. (I'll discuss a few.)

The ICC could claim it has no jurisdiction, but then knowing the law is in question and failing to have an honest hearing, opens several lines of recourse when lawful legal remedies are denied.

War is often described as failed diplomacy and legal remedies, --- and where no alternatives remain. In the absence of an alternative, asymmetric options are often engaged.

It has happened before:

Center for Research on Globalization-Nov 6, 2012
Turkey Begins Nuremberg Trials against Israel | Global Research
Despite preceding Israel, the latter obviously accepts the process known as the Nuremberg Trials. These were a series of military tribunals, ...​

• The Regional States establish their own legal institution and open a Regional Criminal Court with different jurisdictional criteria. And that the RCC then holds hearing and decides the case.

• The RCC could hold a hearing that could decide that the UN made a technical error and determine that the establishment of Israel was a political mistake and disestablish Israel.

• The RCC could determine that Israel is equivalent to being in violation of "Occupation Rule Standards." And the RCC could issue arrest warrants of prominent Israeli personalities.

Judge selection is a process that requires trust in the system. Israel and pro-Israeli elements often exhibit(as a nation and as individual constituents) characteristics of suspiciousness and fear of being persecuted.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime_, et al,

Yes, it will be interesting to see if the ICC takes the Jurisdiction. You know the Post-WWII Nuremberg trials did not have an ICC or a set of Statues.

As I mentioned before, the Palestinians may have a legitimate cause of action. And this is one that I have mention "specifically" before on one of these threads.

(COMMENT)

This particular cause of action is under the Rome Statues. It has to do with the Administration and Protection of the "Occupied Territories."

... ... ...

Now it becomes a legal question because Israel is not a signatory to the ICC Statues and the US has "stated its intention NOT to ratify" (or essentially unsigned) the ICC statues.

First, building houses in the West Bank or Jerusalem is in no sense a war crime. Second, while the PA may - but may not - now have the status to file charges, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this issue under the Rome Statute. Third, since the ICC is not at all insulated from political forces and its judges are not vetted for political bias, it is as likely to issue judgments based on political interests as it is to consider legal issues, but regardless of what it rules, since Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the worst that can happen is that travel by some Israeli leaders to some of the states that did sign the Statute would be problematical.

(COMMENT)

Building in the "Occupied Territories" is not a War Crime. Transferring populations is. If the Israelis are so sure that they are not in RS-2b(viii), they should file a brief to the ICC asking for a fair hearing. (I don't think they are so sure that they want to do that.)

Jurisdiction! Yes several possible outcomes. (I'll discuss a few.)

The ICC could claim it has no jurisdiction, but then knowing the law is in question and failing to have an honest hearing, opens several lines of recourse when lawful legal remedies are denied.

War is often described as failed diplomacy and legal remedies, --- and where no alternatives remain. In the absence of an alternative, asymmetric options are often engaged.

It has happened before:

Center for Research on Globalization-Nov 6, 2012
Turkey Begins Nuremberg Trials against Israel | Global Research
Despite preceding Israel, the latter obviously accepts the process known as the Nuremberg Trials. These were a series of military tribunals, ...​

• The Regional States establish their own legal institution and open a Regional Criminal Court with different jurisdictional criteria. And that the RCC then holds hearing and decides the case.

• The RCC could hold a hearing that could decide that the UN made a technical error and determine that the establishment of Israel was a political mistake and disestablish Israel.

• The RCC could determine that Israel is equivalent to being in violation of "Occupation Rule Standards." And the RCC could issue arrest warrants of prominent Israeli personalities.

Judge selection is a process that requires trust in the system. Israel and pro-Israeli elements often exhibit(as a nation and as individual constituents) characteristics of suspiciousness and fear of being persecuted.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 49 begins by discussing the issue of forcible transfers of populations into or out of an occupied area and never distinguishes any other kind of transfer, so it is clear that the line, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" refers to forcible transfers of population and does not prohibit Israelis from moving into the area under their own free will. There is nothing in the Conventions or in the historical context of the notion of population transfers that suggests it does.

Geneva Convention/Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikisource, the free online library

The areas of jurisdiction of the ICC are spelled out very specifically by the Rome Statute and iits later annexes and not all alleged violations of international laws fall under its juridiction.

International Criminal Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The issue of construction of Israeli communities, or construction within Israeli communities, does not fall under any of the areas of the ICC's jurisdiction.

There is no reason for anyone to trust the impartiality of the judges in the ICC.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

How about... um... um... IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!! Invaded and killed hundreds of thousands for nothing. No reason at all.

What hundreds of thousands, Ima? Have you forgotten that most of the people killed in Iraq were killed by outside Muslim insurgents who came pouring in because they didn't want Iraq to be a democracy.

It was all started by the US for no reason at all.

That's right and over 1 million have died, the US invasion was an act of Aggression, that is a war crime!

Sherri

 

[Roudy]

What hundreds of thousands, Ima? Have you forgotten that most of the people killed in Iraq were killed by outside Muslim insurgents who came pouring in because they didn't want Iraq to be a democracy.

It was all started by the US for no reason at all.

That's right and over 1 million have died, the US invasion was an act of Aggression, that is a war crime!

Sherri

Bunch of nincompoops that don't even know the definition of a war crime, it's jurisdiction, or it's reach.

That's the great thing about the internet, it gives crazy morons like Sherri to spew their irrelevant, ignorant, bigoted vomit.

 

[RoccoR]

toomuchtime_, et al,

This is legal wrangling and subterfuge.

Article 49 begins by discussing the issue of forcible transfers of populations into or out of an occupied area and never distinguishes any other kind of transfer, so it is clear that the line, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" refers to forcible transfers of population and does not prohibit Israelis from moving into the area under their own free will. There is nothing in the Conventions or in the historical context of the notion of population transfers that suggests it does.

The areas of jurisdiction of the ICC are spelled out very specifically by the Rome Statute and iits later annexes and not all alleged violations of international laws fall under its juridiction.

The issue of construction of Israeli communities, or construction within Israeli communities, does not fall under any of the areas of the ICC's jurisdiction.

There is no reason for anyone to trust the impartiality of the judges in the ICC.

(COMMENT)

Everyone, in particularly the primary authors of both the GC and the RS know that the intent of Article 49 and 8-2b(viii), Respectively.

The purpose was to prevent the annexation by population. This is where the "Occupation Power" displaces the indigenous population and replaces with its own; which is exactly what Israel did and why neither the US or Israel could be a party to the Rome Statutes.

You cannot claim to be a country that is rooted in the Rule of Law, yet deny the law. If your interpretation was correct, then neither the US or Israel should be unwilling to litigate and stipulate to the jurisdiction and subsequent mediation. But in fact, they both know that they are in the wrong; Israel for doing it and the US for aiding and abetting.

We know that all legal systems fall prey to "loop hole" and "political ostrich" effects. The suppression of jurisdiction, the interpretation of law, and the implementation of adverse protocols are all techniques used to thwart justice.

Just as the argument used by the Palestinian - that they don't use terrorist tactics - are merely manipulations of the facts, so it is that any attempt to claim that there is no probable cause to believe Israel is a defacto violator of Occupation Law, is as manipulative and an attempt to hide from the attempt to determine the facts and truth.

Any attempt to impune the character of the court, or any officer there to, is also subterfuge. Again it is the paranoia that all litigants claim when they have a very week case and know there is evidence that can be detrimental to their claim of innocents.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Roudy, SherriMunnerlyn, ima, et al,

The US Invasion of Iraq was ill fated and probably the biggest mistake the US has made since becoming a Super Power. But it was not true aggression. It was the wrong approach to establish an extended political-military hegemony into the region.

It was all started by the US for no reason at all.

That's right and over 1 million have died, the US invasion was an act of Aggression, that is a war crime!

Sherri

Bunch of nincompoops that don't even know the definition of a war crime, it's jurisdiction, or it's reach.

That's the great thing about the internet, it gives crazy morons like Sherri to spew their irrelevant, ignorant, bigoted vomit.

(COMMENT)

If the US Invasion is a "war crime," then you would have to indict the entire coalition for that.

To be a thief, all that is required is that you have stolen something. The Jurisdiction and the reach have to do with the judicial process; not the character of the crime or the criminal. So it is with a "war crime." The perfect crime is the one for which you are never prosecuted; but, for which you committed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

toomuchtime_, et al,

Yes, it will be interesting to see if the ICC takes the Jurisdiction. You know the Post-WWII Nuremberg trials did not have an ICC or a set of Statues.

First, building houses in the West Bank or Jerusalem is in no sense a war crime. Second, while the PA may - but may not - now have the status to file charges, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this issue under the Rome Statute. Third, since the ICC is not at all insulated from political forces and its judges are not vetted for political bias, it is as likely to issue judgments based on political interests as it is to consider legal issues, but regardless of what it rules, since Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the worst that can happen is that travel by some Israeli leaders to some of the states that did sign the Statute would be problematical.

(COMMENT)

Building in the "Occupied Territories" is not a War Crime. Transferring populations is. If the Israelis are so sure that they are not in RS-2b(viii), they should file a brief to the ICC asking for a fair hearing. (I don't think they are so sure that they want to do that.)

Jurisdiction! Yes several possible outcomes. (I'll discuss a few.)

The ICC could claim it has no jurisdiction, but then knowing the law is in question and failing to have an honest hearing, opens several lines of recourse when lawful legal remedies are denied.

War is often described as failed diplomacy and legal remedies, --- and where no alternatives remain. In the absence of an alternative, asymmetric options are often engaged.

It has happened before:

Center for Research on Globalization-Nov 6, 2012
Turkey Begins Nuremberg Trials against Israel | Global Research
Despite preceding Israel, the latter obviously accepts the process known as the Nuremberg Trials. These were a series of military tribunals, ...​

• The Regional States establish their own legal institution and open a Regional Criminal Court with different jurisdictional criteria. And that the RCC then holds hearing and decides the case.

• The RCC could hold a hearing that could decide that the UN made a technical error and determine that the establishment of Israel was a political mistake and disestablish Israel.

• The RCC could determine that Israel is equivalent to being in violation of "Occupation Rule Standards." And the RCC could issue arrest warrants of prominent Israeli personalities.

Judge selection is a process that requires trust in the system. Israel and pro-Israeli elements often exhibit(as a nation and as individual constituents) characteristics of suspiciousness and fear of being persecuted.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 49 begins by discussing the issue of forcible transfers of populations into or out of an occupied area and never distinguishes any other kind of transfer, so it is clear that the line, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" refers to forcible transfers of population and does not prohibit Israelis from moving into the area under their own free will. There is nothing in the Conventions or in the historical context of the notion of population transfers that suggests it does.

Geneva Convention/Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikisource, the free online library

The areas of jurisdiction of the ICC are spelled out very specifically by the Rome Statute and iits later annexes and not all alleged violations of international laws fall under its juridiction.

International Criminal Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The issue of construction of Israeli communities, or construction within Israeli communities, does not fall under any of the areas of the ICC's jurisdiction.

There is no reason for anyone to trust the impartiality of the judges in the ICC.

toomuchtime,

No, the words in The Fourth Geneva convention mean exactly what they say, the Occupiers are not allowed to transfer their populations into the Occupied Territories. And substantial violations of The Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes, I think arguably an Occupier illegally transferring over 600,000 of their civilians into an Occupied Territory, in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6, is a substantial violation of the provisions of The Fourth Geneva Convention!

And this was clearly addressed by The International Court of Justice in their Advisory Opinion on The Wall, the fact that Israel moving settlers into the Occupied Territories violates The Fourth Geneva Convention.

Pg 183 Advisory Opinion On The Wall

"120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilain population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory."

The Court went on to state that since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the OPT, contary to Article 49, paragraph 6.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Sherri

 

[Roudy]

Roudy, SherriMunnerlyn, ima, et al,

The US Invasion of Iraq was ill fated and probably the biggest mistake the US has made since becoming a Super Power. But it was not true aggression. It was the wrong approach to establish an extended political-military hegemony into the region.

That's right and over 1 million have died, the US invasion was an act of Aggression, that is a war crime!

Sherri

Bunch of nincompoops that don't even know the definition of a war crime, it's jurisdiction, or it's reach.

That's the great thing about the internet, it gives crazy morons like Sherri to spew their irrelevant, ignorant, bigoted vomit.

(COMMENT)

If the US Invasion is a "war crime," then you would have to indict the entire coalition for that.

To be a thief, all that is required is that you have stolen something. The Jurisdiction and the reach have to do with the judicial process; not the character of the crime or the criminal. So it is with a "war crime." The perfect crime is the one for which you are never prosecuted; but, for which you committed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Most respectfully, if you want to investigate "war crimes" the first place you'd have to focus on would be Arab / Muslim countries. They are the prime violators and commit the worst crimes against humanity one can envision. The war crimes prosecutor should have his hands full for the next 100 years.

Amnesty issued a report late last week criticizing Palestinian terror attacks on Israeli civilians as "crimes against humanity" Palestinian Authority Cabinet Secretary Ahmed Abdul Rahman said that although the Palestinian Authority condemns the bombings of Israeli civilians, they are "a normal consequence of their occupation and rejection of Palestinian rights."

The report, "Without Distinction: Attacks on Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups" addresses what it identifies as 130 attacks since the outbreak of the intifada in September 2000 that have resulted in the deaths of 350 Israeli citizens -- including more than 60 children.

"The attacks by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law," Amnesty says in the report.

Amnesty decries Palestinian 'crimes against humanity' | j. the Jewish news weekly of Northern California

 

[Roudy]

Let's check out the animals operate, apparently they care less for their own than others do:

...Inside the map, the terrorists also marked sniper positions, as well as the location of roadside bombs, anti-tank bombs and landmines," Chief Intelligence Officer Brig.-Gen. Yuval Halamish said Thursday.

Halamish said that the map showed how Hamas does not hesitate to use civilian infrastructure for its terrorist activity. On the map, a brown dot is marked next to a mosque representing a nearby sniper position.

"This is a civilian area and you can see on the map how Hamas booby-trapped the entrance to homes in order to hit the IDF," Halamish said. In another case, a large explosive device was marked on the map next to a gas station. Had it been detonated it would have likely destroyed the gas station as well, killing and wounding civilians who live in the area.

Israel Found Evidence Of Hamas' Crimes Against Humanity

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime_, et al,

This is legal wrangling and subterfuge.

Article 49 begins by discussing the issue of forcible transfers of populations into or out of an occupied area and never distinguishes any other kind of transfer, so it is clear that the line, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" refers to forcible transfers of population and does not prohibit Israelis from moving into the area under their own free will. There is nothing in the Conventions or in the historical context of the notion of population transfers that suggests it does.

The areas of jurisdiction of the ICC are spelled out very specifically by the Rome Statute and iits later annexes and not all alleged violations of international laws fall under its juridiction.

The issue of construction of Israeli communities, or construction within Israeli communities, does not fall under any of the areas of the ICC's jurisdiction.

There is no reason for anyone to trust the impartiality of the judges in the ICC.

(COMMENT)

Everyone, in particularly the primary authors of both the GC and the RS know that the intent of Article 49 and 8-2b(viii), Respectively.

The purpose was to prevent the annexation by population. This is where the "Occupation Power" displaces the indigenous population and replaces with its own; which is exactly what Israel did and why neither the US or Israel could be a party to the Rome Statutes.

You cannot claim to be a country that is rooted in the Rule of Law, yet deny the law. If your interpretation was correct, then neither the US or Israel should be unwilling to litigate and stipulate to the jurisdiction and subsequent mediation. But in fact, they both know that they are in the wrong; Israel for doing it and the US for aiding and abetting.

We know that all legal systems fall prey to "loop hole" and "political ostrich" effects. The suppression of jurisdiction, the interpretation of law, and the implementation of adverse protocols are all techniques used to thwart justice.

Just as the argument used by the Palestinian - that they don't use terrorist tactics - are merely manipulations of the facts, so it is that any attempt to claim that there is no probable cause to believe Israel is a defacto violator of Occupation Law, is as manipulative and an attempt to hide from the attempt to determine the facts and truth.

Any attempt to impune the character of the court, or any officer there to, is also subterfuge. Again it is the paranoia that all litigants claim when they have a very week case and know there is evidence that can be detrimental to their claim of innocents.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, the GC conventions clearly refer to forcible transfers of population, and this did not occur in the West Bank. If you want to talk about original intent, the original intent of the Fourth Geneva Conventions was to deal the the occupation of sovereign territory of on high contracting party by another high contracting party, and since the West Bank and Gaza were not recognized as the sovereign territory of any nation, the Fourth Geneva Conventions do not apply, thus there is no legal occupation as described in that treaty and none of article 49 is relevant.

Annexation by population is not a legal principle, it is a propaganda line. Under the spin you are putting on article 49, it would have been a war crime for the Israeli government to have allowed a single Israeli to have moved into the West Bank, which is preposterous. What's more, nations aren't guilty of war crimes under customary international law, individuals are, so who would be the war criminal? The Israeli who moved of his own free will?

There are land disputes and boundary disputes which the PA refuses to negotiate, but as the Fourth Geneva Conventions are written, there are no war crimes here.

Because of Arab objections, Israel remains the only member of the UN which has never been allowed to serve on the Security Council and because of Arab objections Israel's Magen David Alom was denied membership in the International Red Cross until 2006. Israel has every reason to be suspicious of bias from international organizations, and no honest person who is familiar with the facts would dismiss these concerns as paranoia.

 

[RoccoR]

Roudy, et al,

Make no mistake, I clearly understand the culpability of:

• The International Community
• The Regional Middle East and Gulf Coast Community
• Israel
• The United States
• The Quartet
• The Palestinians (by Organization, collectively and Individually)
• And a number of external aggravants

Most respectfully, if you want to investigate "war crimes" the first place you'd have to focus on would be Arab / Muslim countries. They are the prime violators and commit the worst crimes against humanity one can envision. The war crimes prosecutor should have his hands full for the next 100 years.

(COMMENT)

Again, neither side has clean hands. You prosecute one crime at a time.

It is not the criminal aspect that solves the problem, but the mediation and restitution.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

toomuchtime_, et al,

First, I did not bring up Article 49 of the GCVI, but merely responded to the improper interpretation. I used the RS-8-2b(viii).

Again, the GC conventions clearly refer to forcible transfers of population, and this did not occur in the West Bank. If you want to talk about original intent, the original intent of the Fourth Geneva Conventions was to deal the the occupation of sovereign territory of on high contracting party by another high contracting party, and since the West Bank and Gaza were not recognized as the sovereign territory of any nation, the Fourth Geneva Conventions do not apply, thus there is no legal occupation as described in that treaty and none of article 49 is relevant.

Annexation by population is not a legal principle, it is a propaganda line. Under the spin you are putting on article 49, it would have been a war crime for the Israeli government to have allowed a single Israeli to have moved into the West Bank, which is preposterous. What's more, nations aren't guilty of war crimes under customary international law, individuals are, so who would be the war criminal? The Israeli who moved of his own free will?

There are land disputes and boundary disputes which the PA refuses to negotiate, but as the Fourth Geneva Conventions are written, there are no war crimes here.

Because of Arab objections, Israel remains the only member of the UN which has never been allowed to serve on the Security Council and because of Arab objections Israel's Magen David Alom was denied membership in the International Red Cross until 2006. Israel has every reason to be suspicious of bias from international organizations, and no honest person who is familiar with the facts would dismiss these concerns as paranoia.

(COMMENT)

Now I agree that jurisdiction can be challenged, but not after each side stipulates:

It so happens that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has already rendered one "opinion" and "Advisory," on one aspect of the issue. And they used the GCVI:

120. As regards these settlemeilts, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to oirganize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the ciccupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

.
.
.

The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

SOURCE: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

No matter what my background may be, the opinion is "probable cause."

Now, I again emphasize, that the tone and manner of the court suggest that the ICJ may not acknowledge jurisdiction. (Totally unclear!) But that doesn't mean that International Law was not broken. It only means that no one wants to enforce the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Now that I have provided you the .pdf link, you might find it interesting to read the document starting with Para 147.

Having said that, I am no harder on the Israeli side of the equation as I am on the Palestinian side.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

Roudy, et al,

Make no mistake, I clearly understand the culpability of:

• The International Community
• The Regional Middle East and Gulf Coast Community
• Israel
• The United States
• The Quartet
• The Palestinians (by Organization, collectively and Individually)
• And a number of external aggravants

Most respectfully, if you want to investigate "war crimes" the first place you'd have to focus on would be Arab / Muslim countries. They are the prime violators and commit the worst crimes against humanity one can envision. The war crimes prosecutor should have his hands full for the next 100 years.

(COMMENT)

Again, neither side has clean hands. You prosecute one crime at a time.

It is not the criminal aspect that solves the problem, but the mediation and restitution.

Most Respectfully,
R

Neither side has clean hands, but you cannot compare Israeli or American hands to those of the Palestinians or other Muslim nations or groups. We're talking about getting a parking ticket vs armed robbery.

 

[RoccoR]

Roudy, et al,

I perfer not to assign a value to human life, or do a comparative analysis on that level.

Neither side has clean hands, but you cannot compare Israeli or American hands to those of the Palestinians or other Muslim nations or groups. We're talking about getting a parking ticket vs armed robbery.

(COMMENT)

There is a very strong correlation between the political-lawlessness exhibited - and - the pro-Palestinian element throughout the Middle East Region. There are probably more life threatening and deadly events initiated by the Palestinians than by any other self-proclaimed hostile group in the world. And the sheer number of initiation acts of violence and deadly events is the more significant than the body count as a consequence of the action.

There is probably no segment of the human species more associate with secular violence than the group collectively known as Palestinian; and that number pales in comparison to the violence associated with Palestinians with the Middle Eastern intolerance to non-practitioners of religions dominant in the region. In the Western World, it is generally understood that all the deaths as a result of a criminal act - including the deaths of the criminals, the innocent, the armed responders to the criminal event, and those sponsors aiding and abetting the initiators of the criminal events, are laid at the feet of the criminals and those that aided the criminals.

I have, over the years, heard nearly every excuse there has ever been raised to justify the brutality perpetrated, the violence initiated, and the deadly contact associated with the anti-Israeli movement of the Fanatical Palestinian cause. The acts of terror, especially bombings, rocket attacks, hijackings, and assassinations, committed by operators of Palestinian organizations are the ultimate examples of guerrilla (asymmetrical) warfare, and extremely difficult at stopping these criminals masquerading as warriors for a righteous cause.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[sealadaigh]

Let's check out the animals operate, apparently they care less for their own than others do:

...Inside the map, the terrorists also marked sniper positions, as well as the location of roadside bombs, anti-tank bombs and landmines," Chief Intelligence Officer Brig.-Gen. Yuval Halamish said Thursday.

Halamish said that the map showed how Hamas does not hesitate to use civilian infrastructure for its terrorist activity. On the map, a brown dot is marked next to a mosque representing a nearby sniper position.

"This is a civilian area and you can see on the map how Hamas booby-trapped the entrance to homes in order to hit the IDF," Halamish said. In another case, a large explosive device was marked on the map next to a gas station. Had it been detonated it would have likely destroyed the gas station as well, killing and wounding civilians who live in the area.

Israel Found Evidence Of Hamas' Crimes Against Humanity

well, damn...if a blogger named captainfish says it, it must be true...

 

[Hossfly]

Let's check out the animals operate, apparently they care less for their own than others do:

...Inside the map, the terrorists also marked sniper positions, as well as the location of roadside bombs, anti-tank bombs and landmines," Chief Intelligence Officer Brig.-Gen. Yuval Halamish said Thursday.

Halamish said that the map showed how Hamas does not hesitate to use civilian infrastructure for its terrorist activity. On the map, a brown dot is marked next to a mosque representing a nearby sniper position.

"This is a civilian area and you can see on the map how Hamas booby-trapped the entrance to homes in order to hit the IDF," Halamish said. In another case, a large explosive device was marked on the map next to a gas station. Had it been detonated it would have likely destroyed the gas station as well, killing and wounding civilians who live in the area.

Israel Found Evidence Of Hamas' Crimes Against Humanity

well, damn...if a blogger named captainfish says it, it must be true...

Cap'n Fish is a cousin of Barney Fife. Honest as the day is long.